On Tuesday, an attempt to constitutionally prohibit a state income tax failed. Instead of getting the two-thirds needed, Question 1 on the ballot garnered 57 percent. This led one prominent tax opponent to declare victory.

“It was a solid majority in what was really a Democratic landslide,” Kevin Smith, head of the No Income Tax PAC, told the Union Leader newspaper.

However, Peterborough lawyer and 2002 Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mark Fernald disagreed, arguing Granite Staters would be willing to consider such a tax if it reduced property taxes.

The editorial board here at Foster’s Daily Democrat would argue that Fernald is closer to the reality of Tuesday’s vote than is Smith.

There is little argument that New Hampshire’s property tax system is onerous and regressive. But when compared to the alternatives and the experience of those states which regretfully succumbed, the current property tax system is the best the Granite State is going to do.

But there are some that don’t buy this argument, including some who sit on the editorial board here at Foster’s Daily Democrat.

During a discussion which resulted in our decision to oppose the income tax ban, there was a glimmer of hope that some day, somewhere, somehow somebody would come up with some better way. For the time being, both Democrats and Republicans seem unwilling to pursue that crusade. But for what it is worth, we will plant the seed to be potentially harvested at a later date.

Our thesis is that had Question 1 read differently, it would have received at least majority support. To wit: Would you support the institution of a state income tax if it is used to replace the current real estate property tax?

Of course, readers may quibble with our exact wording. Perhaps, only primary residences should be exempt. And why leave those out-of-staters who own expensive vacation homes here in the Granite State off the hook?

Setting aside such specifics for purposes of this discussion, some on our editorial board believe that eventually the monetary aquifer which the property tax taps will run dry. And when that happens there could be a haphazard rush to quench the state’s financial thirst through any means possible. Such hasty behavior would lend itself to disaster, as can be argued happened in Connecticut, as well as Maine.

For the time being, there will be no such rush. Both Democrats and Republicans who will fill the next session of the Legislature seem to understand the fragile nature of the economy. For that reason and for fear of touching New Hampshire’s third rail of politics, any income tax proposal will remain in a coma for now.

But mark these words, the issue will one day be revived and done so in earnest. As today’s baby boomers move more and more into retirement — many on fixed incomes due to recent recessions — the numbers of those Granite Staters suffering under the property tax will grow. When that happens, we expect talk of an income tax to return in earnest. And when this happens, it will not be easily dismissed by “the pledge.”